Questions like these can be answered scientifically. For example, society can track the rate of Divorces and who initiates them. Currently, it's women. Women initiate a vast majority of divorces in western civilization. Therefore, upon this factor alone, women are less loyal than men. Women are more willing to break-apart families and raise children as a single-parent. This represents the fact that women have a closer physiological bond to children than men do. Children are more the child of the mother, than of the father. This is obvious by how the female gives birth to the child.

Thus represents an innate difference between men and women. Women bare the child. Women give birth to the child. So females have a "closer" bond to the child (more Investment) than males do. This innate difference can be linked as the 'Cause' of marriage infidelity and disloyalty. Women are more disloyal in Marriage, because it the institution benefits women to marry *AND* divorce. Women use marriage as a means to have babies and children more securely than otherwise. Through (Modern) divorce, women can secure entitlement to the ex-husband's wages as well.

The innate difference is the bond between mother and child, which does not exist similarly between father and child.

Some new data about divorce and non-marital breakups contains an unexpected finding, and I think it underscores the fact that we're in the midst of an ongoing evolution in what people want and seek in their romantic relationships. The study, based on a survey of over 2000 heterosexual couples, found that women initiated nearly 70% of all divorces. Yet there was no significant difference between the percentage of breakups initiated by women and men in non-marriage relationships.

How to explain? I find that these data are consistent with what I and others have seen clinically. When men and women seek couples therapy and then subsequently divorce; or, when either partner seeks individual therapy about a marriage conflict that ends in divorce, it’s often the woman who expresses more overt conflict and dissatisfaction about the state of the marriage. On the other hand, the man is more likely to report feeling troubled by his wife’s dissatisfaction, but pretty much “OK” with the way things are; he's content to just lope along as time passes.

In contrast, I find that younger couples – who are more likely to form non-marital but committed relationships — experience more egalitarian partnerships to begin with. When their relationship crumbles beyond repair, both experience that disintegration. Both are equally likely to address it – and part, if it can’t be healed.

These clinical observations are consistent with what the study’s lead author, Michael Rosenfeld, suggests — that women may be more likely to initiate divorces because the married women reported lower levels of relationship quality than married men. In contrast, women and men in non-marital relationships reported equal levels of relationship quality. Rosenfeld said his results support the feminist assertion that some women experience heterosexual marriage as oppressive or uncomfortable.

He adds, “I think that marriage as an institution has been a little bit slow to catch up with expectations for gender equality. Wives still take their husbands’ surnames, and are sometimes pressured to do so. Husbands still expect their wives to do the bulk of the housework and the bulk of the childcare. On the other hand, I think that non-marital relationships lack the historical baggage and expectations of marriage, which makes the non-marital relationships more flexible and therefore more adaptable to modern expectations, including women’s expectations for more gender equality.”

Women initiate a vast majority of divorces in western civilization. Therefore, upon this factor alone, women are less loyal than men.

depends on the reasons for the divorce. Like if the man is cheating, then it is not her disloyalty. As one possible example. But I do think women and men are different and that the bond with the baby is tighter with the mother.

It is her decision because she could choose to forgive him, and keep the marriage. But she does not. Instead she chooses, as most modern western women do, to break apart the family.

Besides, why is the man to blame, if she chooses to become lazy, unattractive, and does not put effort into sexually satisfying her husband? If the wife were responsible, then she would make sure her husband stays loyal.

phyllo wrote:Here is one explanation of why women want to divorce more than men :

Some new data about divorce and non-marital breakups contains an unexpected finding, and I think it underscores the fact that we're in the midst of an ongoing evolution in what people want and seek in their romantic relationships. The study, based on a survey of over 2000 heterosexual couples, found that women initiated nearly 70% of all divorces. Yet there was no significant difference between the percentage of breakups initiated by women and men in non-marriage relationships.

This basically, scientifically, factually proves that women are more disloyal than men, on average.

This basically, scientifically, factually proves that women are more disloyal than men, on average.

It doesn't prove that at all.

"Loyalty" and "disloyalty" are vague general concepts. Initiating a divorce does not automatically fall into the "disloyal" category. If someone is being abused or ignored or used, then it's reasonable to get divorced. That's not disloyalty.

phyllo wrote:"Loyalty" and "disloyalty" are vague general concepts. Initiating a divorce does not automatically fall into the "disloyal" category. If someone is being abused or ignored or used, then it's reasonable to get divorced. That's not disloyalty.

It is disloyalty.

It is the definition of disloyalty. The reasoning and justification for disloyalty is inconsequential. It maybe reasonable for a woman to divorce a husband who beats her unconscious with his fists on a regular basis. It maybe justified. But it is still disloyalty.

The problem here, is that women are not taking accountability for themselves, their decisions, and in the case of sleeping with an abusive man, choosing a partner. Women are to blame, yes. It's not the guy's fault if a woman wants to have sex with him. Also, another point, women routinely return to the arms of their abusive boyfriends. So it's clear that some women like the abuse, or at least, the physically domineering assets of such a boyfriend/husband. If women did not like it, if women actually and realistically did not want such men around, then they would simply not choose them in the first place. But they do. That choice is entirely on the woman, not the man.

It seems to me, throughout my life, that there are many 'Unspoken' gender rules and dynamics. The most obvious one is "don't hit women". This rule revolves around Female Privilege. Females are the privileged gender. I think everybody knows and accepts this on a subconscious level, despite the Modern ideological propagandas that pretend "men and women are equal". Men and women cannot be equal, while, one gender is protected and privileged while the other is not. However, moving forward, another unspoken gender rule is female responsibility. When in life, if ever, does society force women to confront, accept, and deal with their failures? When are women pointed at, as a group, and demanded justice? When are women forced to take responsibility for themselves?

Arguably, never.

Thus it is an extension of the first rule. While men "must not hit women", female-privilege goes further, and attempts to secure the standard that, women are not accountable for anything. Therefore, if women do anything wrong, if women fail individually or as a group, then it's always a man's fault. I believe this is the modus operandi of Modern Feminism. Everything is to blame on men, "Patriarchy". All evils, wrongs, and badness, comes from men. Women are always innocent, always protected, always angels, and can never do anything wrong. If so then a man must take the fall for them.

Because women are the privileged-gender, women are protected both in the physical sense (laws, police, military) and in the mental sense (no personal responsibility, no accountability). Thus men are the expendable-gender. Men are relatively worthless, compared to women. In order to compensate for this difference of innate value, men must live lives of toil, work, and high risk tasks. Men are soldiers, killing other men, and themselves being killed in war zones and battles, on behalf of women. If women truly wanted to stop warfare, then they would simply sexually deny violent men from sex, relationships, marriages, and giving birth to their children. But, instead, women have genetic programming within them, to sexually desire violent, domineering males. So women "can't help" but choose them. So this represents a symbolic "double-standard" and contradiction of nature. Women say one thing "violent men are bad, toxic masculinity" but do another thing, have sex with them, have their children, and usually become single-moms. The dominant males abandon their woman and children, for a beta-male to take care of them, provide for them, and protect them (Cuckoldry).

Feminism has grown too powerful, and convinced the Modern generation of youth, young men and women, that "men are the privileged gender". This is the exact-opposite of reality. Rather, feminism is a means to extend the already-massive privilege of women, even further than ever before. Women want 99.9% of everything. Women are unhappy with 99.8% of everything. So what little men have in life, must also belong to women. Women get everything. Feminism idealizes having the full 100%.

In exchange for female-privilege, women used to concede some rewards and benefits to common men. In the 1950s, and earlier, for example, men would be "allowed" to be more promiscuous, have higher-earnings, and more "freedoms", and this balanced and offset female-privilege. Today in Modernity, all these "male privileges" have been taken by women too. Women want "equal pay", and eventually more pay, than men. Women want to have "equal sex", promiscuity, and Modern women usually have more sex, than men. Despite women getting everything, men are supposed to bend-over, take it up the ass, be completely prideless and humiliated, and then fawn over a slutty and promiscuous woman in her 30s, to which he will become a cuckold and take care of her children from previous (more masculine) men.

If women are never responsible for themselves, never accountable for anything, then who must everybody blame for all the evils and badness in the world? That's right, "God". The entire idea of a (patriarchal) "God responsible for everything" coincides directly, parallel, with female amorality. Women cannot be blamed for anything, and so, a Strawman must be built, erected. A whipping-boy is needed. A Jesus Christ is required, to be crucified, for "all the Sins (female failures) in the world". Sacrifices are needed, animal sacrifices. All this, poured into female privilege, so that women can never take responsibility for anything in life. And that is the development of "human civilization". Women are accountable for nothing, men for everything, and yet still, men represent the "evil patriarchy".

What is the proper response, except to reasonably identify the causes of why does what and why? Maybe women are responsible for somethings, and men for others? But you do not see this on popular topics, especially those most important and relevant to men and women both, concerning sexual attraction, coupling, relationships, and mating. That would be the most challenging area to delineate causes in the first place.

Outside the realm of society, where 'Reality' is clearer, males do a very accurate and amazing job and pinpointing cause and effect. This is called "Science". Men, whom dominate science, can accurately predict and anticipate universal, physical causes, of existence, using mathematical calculations, to impossible levels of accuracy. Women take little to no part in this. Women are not the engine of Science. Women are not the engine of Religion. But you can see how and why men are.

All of these accomplishments by men, are merely Compensations, for that lack of innate sexual value (lack of gender-privilege). After a male has gained accomplishments, over a lifetime, then eventually his 'Doings' can exceed the value of an average woman, and he becomes attractive to her, although women "cannot explain it". It is in this way, that male value is compensated for (by Actions) that can properly and accurately explain sexual relationships in general. Otherwise, bottom line, in biology, males are always a Cost and Liability to females. To become pregnant, to give birth, to feed progeny, all represents Costs. And they are costs of survival. The "benefits" of such, are the end result, the continuation of life.

Despite all these negatives represented by women, isn't it a product of misogyny and "hating women"? The answer is No. Because in spite of female-privilege, men are driven by testosterone and sexual impulses. Women are beautiful, pretty, attractive, and sexual. Men will keep coming back to women, for this cause/reason. So all is forgiven, in a way, through Sex. All is forgotten about. Any past failures of women, despite all the imbalances and inequality, men don't really care when it comes to sexual desire. Males have a focal, one-directional sense of desire. Men work in packs, or can hunt alone, to catch a prey animal, kill it, and then eat its protein. The same 'hunting' instinct is used against females when male testosterone spikes. Thus 'hunting' applies to both males grouping and catching prey animals, or pursuing women sexually.

Women have an instinct, developed over millenniums now, to become as attractive, appealing, and non-threatening to men, to facilitate their sexual advantages. Along with this, it ensures female-privilege continues. Thus things did not come to as they are now randomly, or "by chance". It is not chance, but rather, the daily actions of men and women which shaped, and continue to shape, these dynamics. Females still rely on sex, for power and dominion, and "that's enough" for them. Feminism has convinced many modern women that they need to "be more than" their sexuality. But women have failed in this regard. Women have done relatively little, or completely nothing, for Science, Religion, and Philosophy that any other man could not have done instead.

This argument is quite simple. For any great accomplishment that a woman has ever done, in history, if a man could not have done it is as well, then that accomplishment cannot be had by "women in general". In other words, what great task can a woman do, that a man cannot? This should be a simple question. But actually, it undermines all Modern feminism. It destroys feminism. Because it reduces, and returns, the female-nature back into itself. What can women do, that men cannot? Cook? Clean? Wipe a baby's ass? Men can do all these, and arguably, do it better than women anyway. Thus it can never be had, and it is a futile enterprise, to claim that men and women would be "equal" based on merits and performances. Men and women are not equal on merit, not on action, not on accomplishments.

The female value does revolve around sex, and having children, to reproduce the specie. That is the "engine" that women control, the engine of life. That is the source of female-privilege anyway. That is the reason why, the cause, that men protect women, that there is warfare, that there is science, religion, and philosophy, everything.

It is the definition of disloyalty. The reasoning and justification for disloyalty is inconsequential. It maybe reasonable for a woman to divorce a husband who beats her unconscious with his fists on a regular basis. It maybe justified. But it is still disloyalty.

That's an interesting idea. I wonder if you apply it equally to men and women.

The problem here, is that women are not taking accountability for themselves, their decisions, and in the case of sleeping with an abusive man, choosing a partner. Women are to blame, yes. It's not the guy's fault if a woman wants to have sex with him. Also, another point, women routinely return to the arms of their abusive boyfriends. So it's clear that some women like the abuse, or at least, the physically domineering assets of such a boyfriend/husband. If women did not like it, if women actually and realistically did not want such men around, then they would simply not choose them in the first place. But they do. That choice is entirely on the woman, not the man.

So you blame her for choosing the guy and you call her disloyal when she chooses to get out of the marriage after she realizes that she made a mistake. Nice. And not one-sided at all.

However, moving forward, another unspoken gender rule is female responsibility. When in life, if ever, does society force women to confront, accept, and deal with their failures? When are women pointed at, as a group, and demanded justice? When are women forced to take responsibility for themselves?

Arguably, never.

A woman is taking responsibility when she raises a child on her own after the guy who gets her pregnant pisses off.

women initiated nearly 70% of all divorces. Yet there was no significant difference between the percentage of breakups initiated by women and men in non-marriage relationships.

I don't buy that at all.

it’s often the woman who expresses more overt conflict and dissatisfaction about the state of the marriage. On the other hand, the man is more likely to report feeling troubled by his wife’s dissatisfaction, but pretty much “OK” with the way things are; he's content to just lope along as time passes.

Exactly! Men get into ruts and women get bored.

In contrast, I find that younger couples – who are more likely to form non-marital but committed relationships — experience more egalitarian partnerships to begin with. When their relationship crumbles beyond repair, both experience that disintegration. Both are equally likely to address it – and part, if it can’t be healed.

That may be true within the confines of San Francisco.

These clinical observations are consistent with what the study’s lead author, Michael Rosenfeld, suggests — that women may be more likely to initiate divorces because the married women reported lower levels of relationship quality than married men. In contrast, women and men in non-marital relationships reported equal levels of relationship quality. Rosenfeld said his results support the feminist assertion that some women experience heterosexual marriage as oppressive or uncomfortable.

Oh I see what's going on now. Marriage is oppressive so we need to find, er, create evidence to back that theory.

He adds, “I think that marriage as an institution has been a little bit slow to catch up with expectations for gender equality. Wives still take their husbands’ surnames, and are sometimes pressured to do so. Husbands still expect their wives to do the bulk of the housework and the bulk of the childcare. On the other hand, I think that non-marital relationships lack the historical baggage and expectations of marriage, which makes the non-marital relationships more flexible and therefore more adaptable to modern expectations, including women’s expectations for more gender equality.”

If a horse ate baloney and shit it out, that's what it would look like. They obviously didn't control for age, but men in non-married relationships still expect women to do all the work and if they're of a generation that doesn't, then marriage has nothing to do with it; it's the generational tendency to be egalitarian.

phyllo wrote:Here is one explanation of why women want to divorce more than men :

Some new data about divorce and non-marital breakups contains an unexpected finding, and I think it underscores the fact that we're in the midst of an ongoing evolution in what people want and seek in their romantic relationships. The study, based on a survey of over 2000 heterosexual couples, found that women initiated nearly 70% of all divorces. Yet there was no significant difference between the percentage of breakups initiated by women and men in non-marriage relationships.

This basically, scientifically, factually proves that women are more disloyal than men, on average.

Women want the courtship to last forever. Men, who put on a big show to win the woman, just want to return to their normal self without having to continue working for what he already has. So the woman was sold a bag of bs to begin with and continues to have unrealistic expectations.

This basically, scientifically, factually proves that women are more disloyal than men, on average.

It doesn't prove that at all.

"Loyalty" and "disloyalty" are vague general concepts. Initiating a divorce does not automatically fall into the "disloyal" category. If someone is being abused or ignored or used, then it's reasonable to get divorced. That's not disloyalty.

If you make a big show of standing on an altar before what you perceive as almighty God and promise forever, then run out to file for divorce, that's disloyal. Either don't promise or suck it up.

However, moving forward, another unspoken gender rule is female responsibility. When in life, if ever, does society force women to confront, accept, and deal with their failures? When are women pointed at, as a group, and demanded justice? When are women forced to take responsibility for themselves?

Arguably, never.

A woman is taking responsibility when she raises a child on her own after the guy who gets her pregnant pisses off.

Not if the state steps in as the husband of last resort. Probably part of the reason women are so trigger-happy to divorce... they have a trusty backup.